Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑49 of 1982, decided on 13th April, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑

----Ss. 25‑A & 38‑Illegal termination of service‑Labour Court awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑Objection that claim for back benefit not having been made in grievance petition same could not have been awarded‑Prayer in grievance notice as well as petition for re‑instatement with pay‑Claim for re‑instatement with wages, in circumstances, held, can reasonably be considered as claim for re‑instatement with back benefits hence objection repelled by Appellate Tribunal.

Khalid Javed for Appellants.

S. M. Kohistani for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th April, 1982.

This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on Ist February, 1982, upon the grievance petition filed by the respondent workman against his termination of services, by the impugned decision, the learned Labour Court has directed the appellants to re‑instate the respondent workman in service with full back benefits as the termination of services was against the law.

2. The case of the respondent workman is that on 18th March, 1981, he was sent for by the Labour Officer of the appellants at his office where be was served with a letter intimating that his services had been terminated with immediate effect and that he should settle his accounts finally on 21st March, 198:. It is claimed by the respondent that this unauthorised action was taken by the appellants as he had been elected as a member of the managing committee of the Continental Footwear Industries Workers Union, which is the collective bargaining agent for the employees in the appellant establishment. The respondent has further claimed that the appellants were opposed to the working of the union and pressed him to resign from the membership of its managing com mittee, but as he refused to do so, therefore, his services were unlawfully terminated.

3. On the other hand, the case of the appellant, as disclosed in their reply statement is that on 18th February, 1981, the respondent was brought to the M. D. by the Labour Officer, that the respondent informed him that he was no more interested in service and hence was leaving the employment of the appellants, that the respondent asked for greater payment than what he was entitled to and as this was refused to him, the respondent left the factory and filed a grievance petition before the learn ed Labour Court.

4. The sole evidence recorded in this case is of the respondent.

He was not even cross‑examined by the appellants as their learned counsel declined to do so on the ground that he had no instructions from his clients. Further more no evidence was led by the appellants. It appears that when the learned counsel for the appellants declined to cross -examine the respondent for want of instructions and the evidence of the respondent was closed on 17th December, 1981, the learned counsel for the appellants orally asked for an adjournment, which was granted to him, and the case was fixed for evidence of the appellants on 2nd January, 1982. However, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants on the said date and accordingly their side was closed on account of non appearance. Some 11 days later, on 13th January, 1982, an application was moved by another counsel appearing for the appellants to allow the appellants to cross‑examine the respondent and lead evidence. However, this application was rejected by the learned Labour Court by its order, dated 16th January, 1982. The learned Labour Court has given valid and cogent reasons for rejecting the said application.

5. Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned counsel for the appellants sought to argue that the respondent had himself left the services of the appellants as asserted by them to their reply statement. However, there is not an iota of evidence in support of his claim. As already stated, neither the respondent was cross‑examined nor any evidence has been led on behalf of the appellants. The written statement, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. Even otherwise, the claim of the appellants that the respondent left their services of his own accord does not appear to have substance. If the respondent was no more interested in continuing employment with the appellants, he could not at the same time have made claim for extra payment to him, as there was no ground on which such claim could be founded. Furthermore, claim of the appellants stands falsified by the chit signed by the labour officer stating that the services of the respondent stood terminated with immediate effect and he should settle his accounts by 21st March, 1981. This chit is dated 18th March, 1981, the date on which the services of the respondent are said to have been terminated. Since the termination of services of the respondent was in violation of the provisions of Standing Order 12, the learned Labour Court rightly set aside the same.

6. It was contended by Mr. Khalid Javed that at least there was no justification for the award of back benefits to the respondent. He claimed that the respondent was in service in some other factories. There is, how ever, no evidence on record to suggest or indicate that the respondent was employed elsewhere. Mr. Khalid Javed was even unable to state the name of the establishment where the respondent is said to have been employed.

7. It was finally contended by Mr. Khalid Javed that the respondent has not claimed back benefits in his grievance petition and, therefore, the learned Labour Court was not justified in awarding the same to him. Both in his grievance notice and in his grievance petition, the respondent has prayed for re‑instatement in service with, pay. The precise words "back benefits" or "back wages" have no doubt not been used but I am inclined to the view that the claim of re‑instatement with wages can reasonably be considered to be a claim for re‑instatement with back wages.

8. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.